14-03-2003 06:59									#271
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK I'm old enough to reason.

Good. I have enjoyed discussing things with you because you do seem reasonable at times.

	14-03-2003 07:00									#272
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Universities generally are dominated by the far left.

Not true.

	14-03-2003 07:01									#273
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Trajanus Some are actually aiming for such prizes right now!!

Trajanus, I doubt you would get a prize if your thesis was that Reagan was right to declare the USSR an Evil Empire.

	14-03-2003 07:01									#274
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Not true.

Really?

Which ones are not?

	14-03-2003 07:02									#275
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned Good. I have enjoyed discussing things with you because you do seem reasonable at times.

Same to you, sir.

	14-03-2003 07:03									#276
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Really? Which ones are not?

I don't believe any of them are. There are some lefty faculty members, but the majority are either moderates or rightwing.

	14-03-2003 07:11									#277
	Put an end to popups!

Well, I'll be. That simply is not the impression I got from listening to pundits over the years. The general impression I received is that universities are a haven for the far left.

My first hand impression of Carleton College, from which my daughter just graduated, is that it is dominated by the far left.

I must admit, though, that the schools from which I graduated only had a smattering of far left professors.

	14-03-2003 07:14									#278
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ned,

I have an economics degree from Cal State Fresno. Out of 9 professors, only 2 were Communists, one was an American Institutionalist (left wing), and the rest were either mainstream or rightwing (at least 2), but none of them ever graded me because they didn't like my ideology.

	14-03-2003 07:15									#279
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned I credit Nixon for getting us out of Vietnam. He should have escallated the bombing sooner, because that was what forced NV into a deal.

Nixon was a traitor. He sabotaged the '68 Paris Peace talks and kept us in war four years longer than we should have been.

	14-03-2003 07:18									#280
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Well, I'll be. That simply is not the impression I got from listening to pundits over the years. The general impression I received is that universities are a haven for the far left. My first hand impression of Carleton College, from which my daughter just graduated, is that it is dominated by the far left. I must admit, though, that the schools from which I graduated only had a smattering of far left professors.

Most of the economics departments are mostly mainstream. I think there are a few that are unorthodox, but I'm not sure what the names of them are. If you study Sociology or Women's Studies, something like that, of course the professors will tend to be liberal or left wing.

	14-03-2003 07:38									#281
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Nixon was a traitor. He sabotaged the '68 Paris Peace talks and kept us in war four years longer than we should have been.

Che you were 6 years old when the war stopped. How can you come off saying something you have no knowledge of? Only what you have read or someone has told you is all you know, nothing else.
If anyone was a traitor, it was Johnson for not letting our guys (my guys, remember that was supposed to be my war to, but was not sent to Nam). do their jobs. When Nixon first came in, he try the Johnson way but it did not work. So he bomb the piss out of them and they finely said no more, we will sigh a treaty with us and we can go home.

	14-03-2003 10:11									#282
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I don't believe any of them are. There are some lefty faculty members, but the majority are either moderates or rightwing.

LOL, welcome to lala land .

Oh, and continuing the past discussion: Many pre-Keynesians did not believe in Say's law (Malthus considered himself a free market, classical economist, remember). The market always clearing only refers to the market clearance if supply and demand are followed.

Producing more product is simply moving along the S curve, which, if moving away from equilibrium, is simply foolish and will not clear because you aren't following supply and demand. And demand curves aren't nice and all flowing like you saw in your economics classes. Sometimes they stop in the middle of the graph. Free market types knew this (especially in industries concentrated in a certain location). If you increase supply to the point where the demand curve ends, free marketers did not believe it will not magically extend to match supply. Supply must match demand. It is demand which creates supply, not the other way around for most of capitalist history. If it were otherwise then economists would tell companies to simply produce as much as you can, no matter what the demand, and you'll sell it all. That's ludicrous.

Further, Keynes got Say wrong. Say never said 'supply creates its own demand'. Say said that without supply there is no demand. Basically supply is a precondition for demand, which is basically correct.

In the end, consumption boosters are demand side policies and investment & production boosters are supply side policies. Seeing as you back consumption AND production (as seen in other threads), I'd say you were a demand and supply sider .

'Supply-Side Economics' is something totally different though, and is now simply considered the type of economics during the Reagan years. Say would have deplored Reagan's economics. He'd applaud the tax cuts, but would back spending cuts to balance it out.

	14-03-2003 10:44									#283
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Nixon was a traitor. He sabotaged the '68 Paris Peace talks and kept us in war four years longer than we should have been.

What was the deal that the NV were offering Johnson?

	14-03-2003 10:59									#284
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Imran, et al., it seems to me that putting more money in the hands of the people will cause the industrial engine to speed up if the slowdown has caused inventory buildup to meet the short-term demand. Otherwise, the new money will merely bid up prices for products as short term demand exceed short term supply.

Reduction of corporate taxes or interest rates, on the other hand, reduces the cost of good and services, enabling corporations to hirer more people, to cut prices to move more product and to make more profit so their stock price rise. All three effects lead directly to a growing economy.

To this effect, I understand that Greenspan is thinking about cutting interest rates again. Congress should also consider cutting corporate taxes - for example, by making dividend deductable.

	14-03-2003 23:55									#285
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Imran,

Your post is very unclear. When you say 'producing' more you mean a shift in supply right? That's what Say was talking about. If you believe in Says law then you believe that a new equilibrium price will be set after supply increases. There is no movement along the supply curve because the supply curve moves. The movement is along the demand curve.

If you have a shift in demand then you have a movement along the supply curve. Both of them amount to increased production, but Say wasn't talking about shift in demand or movement on the supply curve.

On the other matter, I don't know what you're talking about with Say's law. I haven't studied Say much, but it's common belief that he stated that equilibrium price would be maintained no matter how much supply increased, that is that any production of goods would be bought up by consumers.

As far as demand-side Keynesianism, I think it can be used to correct market failure. As far as supply-side economics or trickle down economics I think it doesn't work and causes market failure, and it certainly doesn't correct market failure.

	15-03-2003 00:04									#286
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: When you say 'producing' more you mean a shift in supply right? That's what Say was talking about. If you believe in Says law then you believe that a new equilibrium price will be set after supply increases. There is no movement along the supply curve because the supply curve moves.

The supply curve moves only when the means of production are altered. If you simply create more, it is simply movement along the supply curve. This was driven in by my professors. A shift in the curve usually comes from increases in technology, not by just producing more.

quote: I haven't studied Say much, but it's common belief that he stated that equilibrium price would be maintained no matter how much supply increased, that is that any production of goods would be bought up by consumers.

The basics of Say's law is that demand does not exist without supply. Keynes' said that his argument is 'supply creates its own demand', but this is a misunderstanding of his point. I don't believe that Say would say that under a controlled economy that any production of goods would be bought by consumers. You cannot simply produce something that no one wants and expect it all to be sold. Say knew that.

quote: As far as demand-side Keynesianism, I think it can be used to correct market failure. As far as supply-side economics or trickle down economics I think it doesn't work and causes market failure, and it certainly doesn't correct market failure.

There is the problem again, and what I'm talking about. You consider all demand-side to be Keynesianism and all supply-side to be Reaganism. What about Monetarism? You could consider that supply-side, but it isn't 'Supply-side economics'. That was the whole point. When you say that supply-side has been emphasized throughout economics, you have Reagan in mind, not von Hayek.

Oh, and Monetary policy is much more effective than Fiscal policy, especially in solving recessionary problems.

	15-03-2003 00:04									#287
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned Imran, et al., it seems to me that putting more money in the hands of the people will cause the industrial engine to speed up if the slowdown has caused inventory buildup to meet the short-term demand. Otherwise, the new money will merely bid up prices for products as short term demand exceed short term supply.

True, but the trick is to keep prices high enough to maintain full employment. Now what full emplyment is is debatable. I think that during the 90s we didn't have full employment. I think the economy would have done much better if we would have had something like 2% unemployment. So the government and the fed should have done more to stimulate demand.

quote: Originally posted by Ned Reduction of corporate taxes or interest rates, on the other hand, reduces the cost of good and services, enabling corporations to hirer more people, to cut prices to move more product and to make more profit so their stock price rise. All three effects lead directly to a growing economy.

These things only work in an economy that is growing anyway. If the economy isn't growing these things won't work because businesses won't invest because of poor business confidence.

quote: Originally posted by Ned To this effect, I understand that Greenspan is thinking about cutting interest rates again. Congress should also consider cutting corporate taxes - for example, by making dividend deductable.

Your right that cutting interest rates wont help, but I think some direct government spending in the economy is what should be happening in Japan, Europe and the US. All three economies are looking at serious demographic changes and tax cuts that don't work are going to make things worse.

	15-03-2003 00:15									#288
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: When you say 'producing' more you mean a shift in supply right? That's what Say was talking about. If you believe in Says law then you believe that a new equilibrium price will be set after supply increases. There is no movement along the supply curve because the supply curve moves. The supply curve moves only when the means of production are altered. If you simply create more, it is simply movement along the supply curve. This was driven in by my professors. A shift in the curve usually comes from increases in technology, not by just producing more.

Shifts in supply also occur when business costs are reduced (among some other things), that's why the supply-siders want to cut taxes.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I haven't studied Say much, but it's common belief that he stated that equilibrium price would be maintained no matter how much supply increased, that is that any production of goods would be bought up by consumers. The basics of Say's law is that demand does not exist without supply. Keynes' said that his argument is 'supply creates its own demand', but this is a misunderstanding of his point. I don't believe that Say would say that under a controlled economy that any production of goods would be bought by consumers. You cannot simply produce something that no one wants and expect it all to be sold. Say knew that.

I don't think Keynes was wrong in his interpretation.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: As far as demand-side Keynesianism, I think it can be used to correct market failure. As far as supply-side economics or trickle down economics I think it doesn't work and causes market failure, and it certainly doesn't correct market failure. There is the problem again, and what I'm talking about. You consider all demand-side to be Keynesianism and all supply-side to be Reaganism. What about Monetarism? You could consider that supply-side, but it isn't 'Supply-side economics'. That was the whole point. When you say that supply-side has been emphasized throughout economics, you have Reagan in mind, not von Hayek. Oh, and Monetary policy is much more effective than Fiscal policy, especially in solving recessionary problems.

Monetary policy can't really handle major problems in the economy and can actually cause some big problems. We really don't have much choice but to use it though because fiscal policy is pretty much impossible with the budget process.

	15-03-2003 00:21									#289
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned What was the deal that the NV were offering Johnson?

It's irrelevent. The deal was almost through, and at the last minute the South pulled out of the talks because the Nixon team told them that if they held out they could get a better deal with a Nixon presidency. Kissinger leaked info from the talks to the Nixon team, who funneled their deal to the South through Chenault's wife (of Flying Tiger's fame). The resulting embarressment for the Johnson presidency cost Humphry the election.

Four more years of war, 24, 000 American and almost a million Vietnamese lives, plus the whole debacle and genocide in Cambodia were the result of that treason. If Nixon weren't already dead, he should have been executed (not that it would be possible because of Ford's pardon). Kissinger is still around. He needs to dance from the end of a rope.

	15-03-2003 00:23									#290
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What about Monetarism? You could consider that supply-side, but it isn't 'Supply-side economics'.

I think that monetary policy can either be supply-sided or demand-sided and it has been only supply-sided. Supply-sided policy is more concerned with inflation while demand-sided policy is more concerned with full employment. The Fed has always been more concerned with inflation. The exception is the Bank of Japan right now. They are setting out to create inflation in order to get the economy going right now, but it's something they should have done 10 years ago.

	15-03-2003 00:27									#291
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: We really don't have much choice but to use it though because fiscal policy is pretty much impossible with the budget process.

That and fiscal policy is very risky. Usually by the time it is enacted the 'crisis' is over and it overcompensates, causing greater problems that it solves. The Monetarists showed this when they refuted Keynesianism (which is almost dead as an economic idelogy... neo-Keynesians are much more classical than Keynesian interestingly enough).

I support fiscal policy usually for ideological reasonings. Ie, I like the Bush tax cuts because I like less taxes and (hopefully) less government. I don't think it'll do all that much to stimulate the economy. We'll just have to ride out the cycle for that.

	15-03-2003 00:34									#292
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: We really don't have much choice but to use it though because fiscal policy is pretty much impossible with the budget process. That and fiscal policy is very risky. Usually by the time it is enacted the 'crisis' is over and it overcompensates, causing greater problems that it solves. The Monetarists showed this when they refuted Keynesianism (which is almost dead as an economic idelogy... neo-Keynesians are much more classical than Keynesian interestingly enough).

There's nothing wrong with a little inflation. You can just tighten the money supply a bit. The thing the conservatives (maybe that is better than supply-siders) screw up on is by wanting to keep demand so tight that they prevent growth. Debt and inflation aren't big problems when the economy is growing.

	15-03-2003 00:39									#293
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: There's nothing wrong with a little inflation.

Of course not... but that is monetarism at work. You have to make a policy choice of which one you want. I think most recent heads of the Fed remember the end of the 70s and just hate inflation.

	15-03-2003 00:40									#294
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I like the Bush tax cuts because I like less taxes and (hopefully) less government.

The thing is that taxes are increased in the future and spending isn't effected or actually increases. People see this now. They were fooled a bit in the 80s, but they won't be fooled this time, and they won't spend the money. They will know that taxes will have to be increased again (in the near future) and spending is going to increase too.

	15-03-2003 00:41									#295
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: There's nothing wrong with a little inflation. Of course not... but that is monetarism at work. You have to make a policy choice of which one you want. I think most recent heads of the Fed remember the end of the 70s and just hate inflation.

They hate inflation because they are bankers. That will never change as long as bankers run the banks.

	15-03-2003 00:47									#296
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: They were fooled a bit in the 80s, but they won't be fooled this time, and they won't spend the money. They will know that taxes will have to be increased again (in the near future) and spending is going to increase too.

Why would they not spend? If you have more money, you spend it. Why would you not spend and wait for taxes to go up?

quote: They hate inflation because they are bankers. That will never change as long as bankers run the banks.

That didn't seem to be a great problem in the 1950s and 60s, with heads of the Fed that lived through the Depression.

	15-03-2003 01:00									#297
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: They were fooled a bit in the 80s, but they won't be fooled this time, and they won't spend the money. They will know that taxes will have to be increased again (in the near future) and spending is going to increase too. Why would they not spend? If you have more money, you spend it. Why would you not spend and wait for taxes to go up?

They will spend a little bit, but not like they would if they didn't believe that the taxes were going to be increased again. The cuts wont do anything unless they spend a lot of it.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: They hate inflation because they are bankers. That will never change as long as bankers run the banks. That didn't seem to be a great problem in the 1950s and 60s, with heads of the Fed that lived through the Depression.

I think we would have had better growth with looser money supply. The Fed chiefs were paranoid about inflation during that time and held back a lot of growth.

	15-03-2003 01:09									#298
	Got spare money?

Well we have some wholesale infaltion and flat industrial production now. Doesn't look good for the eoconomy now.

	15-03-2003 01:30									#299
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

housing starts come out on tuesday. that could be interesting.

	15-03-2003 01:51									#300
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Really? Which ones are not?

University of Chicago?
In any case economics departments don't tend to be that left wing, for example at Wesleyan University which really is dominated by the left and we've got a pretty big econ department for a school our size (about 15 profs IIRC) we've only got one real commie and a smattering of Soc Dem types, but most are pretty Neo-Keynesian (which is a bit of a misnomer) mainstream with a few old-fashioned Neo-Classical.